TeamSpeak MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, message formatting constraints, whether the message is broadcast to all channel members, or how errors are handled. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and platform.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool (sending messages) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals show this is a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, requiring more comprehensive documentation than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even when the description provides no additional parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Send a message') and target ('to a TeamSpeak channel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'send_private_message', which handles a similar messaging function but to individual clients instead of channels.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_private_message' or other communication methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for channel messaging versus private messaging.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.